Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
316 U.S. 4 · 1942
Citation profile
483 federal appellate · 121 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,139 later decisions (85 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), Flast v. Cohen (1968)
483 federal appellate · 121 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 21 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedBoston Broadcasting Co. Station Wloe v. Federal Radio Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Massachusetts v. Mellon · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · David Muskrat v. · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States
Cited together with Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station · Yakus v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States · Baker v. Carr
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No court can make time stand still. The circumstances surrounding a controversy may change irrevocably during the pendency of an appeal, despite anything a court can do. But within these limits it is reasonable that an appellate court should be able to prevent irreparable injury to the parties or to the public resulting from the premature enforcement of a determination which may later be found to have been wrong. It has always been held, therefore, that as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome of an appeal. * * * ” 4”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was to protect the public interest in communications,”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We must be wary against interpolating our notions of policy in the interstices of legislative provisions.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.